Hillary's questionable behaviour in rape defence case
 

Donald actual rapist

Shocking, I hope her supporters on here watch this

I heard she gets off when Bill tells her stories of his rapist ways.

But there's already threads on him, this one's about Hillary.

sorry what?

Yes well done
Tibb Balance

Oh my god at the editing in this :joker: Talk about pushing an agenda (and ignoring the facts).

She defended someone on a rape charge because she was state lawyer and she had to. People who are accused of rape (and yes even people who have committed rape) are still entitled to be represented by a lawyer in court, and the fact that Hillary was that lawyer wasn't up to her (in fact I think she tried to be taken off the case but wasn't allowed).

Anyway the prosecution was a total mess, forensics lost the evidence they had (the cut out part of the underwear with semen and blood on it), which meant the prosecution had no evidence and no case. AFTER that happened, Hillary took the rest of the underwear (where nothing had been found by the prosecution's forensics team) to a forensics expert to see if there was anything they could find in order to convict him, but they couldn't. This video completely twists all of that, it's actually ridiculous.

The laughing in the tapes is when she's talking about the stupidity of some of the things that happened in the case, she's not laughing at the victim at all. (If you've heard the full tapes you'll see how distorted this video is).

thought we were throwing around stupid labels, sorry my bad

Well that's cleared that up, end of story.

Back to Trump.

Yes I can see how this particular viewpoint would put her in the clear but as you say, its just a view point to refute all the information in the video. You do not provide any sources for your googled knowledge?

She doesn't however need to take pleasure from it, laugh about it, joke about it as she did.

Like I said in my post though she doesn't make any jokes or laugh at the victim when she mentions her. When she laughs, it's at stupid things like how she doesn't trust lie detectors, and that's been twisted into "omg she thinks rape is funny", but it's a hysterical reaction because the video in the OP has lifted everything she said in the interview out of context.

Some aspects of the case are laughably ridiculous, but laughing at them doesn't mean she finds all aspects of it funny. I laughed at the editing of the video, does that mean that I find rape funny because there's a connection between the video and rape? No it doesn't.

She should appeal to a lot of Trump's supporters when she's elected then

90% of the media have made up their minds that they are going to try to take out Trump because he threatens the whole corrupt system. They are throwing everything they have at him (polls that over-sample Democrats, stories from women no one has ever heard of).

They are trying to take him out. I hope people start to notice how one-sided this all is especially in light of the Wikileaks revelation that the media and her campaign have been coordinating.

yes...its about as bad as listening to a private conversation that was just show off banter and trying to make out its admission of rape......


:think:

Since this excellent, abhorrent, and shocking post was made by Alf, I have refrained from responding, because I wanted to see the reaction from other members, particularly those who have been so vociferous and persistent in their - rightful - condemnation of Trump over the 'Busgate Tape'.

There has however, been, thus far, scant reaction, and what reaction there has been, has - in my opinion - been dismissive, denialist, and deflective.

But perhaps, it is not the above dismissive, denialist, and deflective 'voices' which are the most informative about the lack of impartiality, objectivity, and fairness, in some of the posts on here, but those other anti-Trump/pro Clinton 'voices' which have all so suddenly fallen deathly quiet.

And it is just that very 'nothing to say' sudden silence, which I am afraid to say, strips away all credibility from those views on here which have so vilified Trump.

The unproven, emphatically denied, and - to be honest, expected - allegations of 'historic' sexual harassment/abuse against Trump, which are now surfacing aside, the case against Trump largely rests on his 'historic' and ego-driven foolish comments regarding the opposite sex.

Unpalatable they may well be - but they are words.

Is it really 'Rapey' to look at a 12 year old girl and comment that; 'In ten years time, I might be marrying her'?

Give Trump's track record in marrying women decades his junior, and the underlying fact that he is ABLE to do so, then all Trump is really guilty of here is boastfully telling the truth about a 'possibility' - a truth which may well be outrageous or disgusting to some, but the truth nonetheless.

The arguments over the 'historical' 'Busgate' video still rages, and it has been well enough covered, but as shocking and sexist as Trump's ego-driven boastful comments are, about power, wealth and fame enabling (some) men to grope (some) women at will without protest or resistance - WAS he lying?

I still maintain that the answer is NO.

It happens in the world of the rich, powerful and famous. It has always happened. It will always happen.

For anyone to refute this - in spite of the 'after the historical facts' revelations attesting to it in books, documentaries, and interviews - is to be in denial.

None of the above makes Trump a nice person, or a decent person, or a morally upright person - but as reprehensible as he may be, none of the above make him the 'Devil Incarnate' either, and - current allegations aside - he has not broken the law.

Unlike the equally abhorrent, if not more abhorrent, Hilary Clinton.

And where Trump's many disgusting vocal gaffes show a 'state of mind' which is morally questionable, Clinton's track record is peppered with ACTUAL illegal, immoral and downright unethical actions - this shocking video in the OP being merely the latest of them.

I need not dissect and analyse the video content - it is plain enough for all impartial members who possess an objective mind, to see, but I will ask
Which is worse:

An historical video showing a now famous, wealthy, and powerful PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE boastfully TALKING - as a PRIVATE CITIZEN - about women in a sexually derogatory manner, including the possibility of marrying a 12 year old in ten years time?

Or an historical video showing a now famous, wealthy, and powerful PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE boastfully TALKING about how - as a DEFENCE ATTORNEY - she used deceitful and dishonest tactics to ensure that a depraved sexuallly deviant monster who she KNEW had raped and beat a little, innocent 12 year old girl to such a degree that she was in a coma, to EVADE his rightful and proper punishment under the law?

Trump is a turd, but he is only a very SMALL turd in comparison to the cess pit which is Hilary Clinton.

Of course, I support neither, so I can say this, unlike those who hate on here with such a ferocity that their views lose all objectivity.

I know this will not be popular, but it IS my opinion.

Yes Kirk and other people have their own opinions and see things differently to you, that's life, people are not obliged to respond to threads

I have not disputed that though Niamh - I was stating that in my opinion, the fact that they have not replied is very informative. In my opinion.

She was doing her job, sometimes solicitors have to defend vile people. Next.

that is not what it is about Im afraid

The video is about a ranting Trump supporter trying to make out that Hillary's the devil for doing her job and tries to make out that she was underhanded in the case through unrelated circumstantial evidence at best. Where's the proof that the judge did anything untoward in the case? Simply saying he was a Clinton Campaign supporter is not enough without evidence of actual wrongdoing. You're just encouraging guilt by association.

As you like to say, where's your proof? Where's the evidence? Go on, I'll wait.

Dont hold your breath Dezzy I want to play the next Darkwood :worry:

Ha! I'm afraid, that your dismissive attitude to me is no surprise, but that pales into insignificance when it comes to your dismissive attitude to the TRUTHFUL reality of just what Clinton did - and that was certainly FAR MORE than just 'her job'.

The question of whether Clinton knew that her client was guilty or not, will only ever be truly known to herself and her client, but the logical assumption - based upon her own words in the video under discussion - is that she either DID know, or at least greatly SUSPECTED as much.

And therein lies the problem, because it is not the question of whether she should have continued to defend her client or not, whilst knowing or suspecting that he was guilty, that indicts Clinton of being an unscrupulous, dishonest and thoroughly callous bitch, but more just HOW she freely CHOSE to conduct his defence.

Legal ethics do not come into this, because - despite precedents of Defence Attorney's continuing to plead a case for their client's innocence when they KNEW they were guilty which date as far back as the 'Courvoisier' murder case of 1840, and as recently as the 2006 case of David Westerfield (more below) - NO hard and fast ruling on just what the Defence Attorney should or should not do, exists.

So arguably, Clinton did nothing wrong in continuing to defend Taylor. whist knowing or suspecting that he was indeed guilty, but the manner in which she freely elected to defend this evil bastard is beyond belief, because her wholly reprehensible tactics in so coldly and cruelly attacking the little 12 year old victim, destroying her credibility, and vilely shifting blame and culpability for Taylor's evil ONTO her, is not only INDEFENSIBLE, but mirrors the equally disgusting case from 2006 which is mentioned above.

In that notorious case, a San Diego Defence Attorney named Steve Feldman, was defending an evil bastard called David Westerfield who abducted and slaughtered a little girl - Danielle Van Dam- whose body had never been found.

During plea bargaining, the prosecutor offered not to seek the death penalty if Feldman would get his client to disclose the location of the body so the poor girl's family could have at least the consolation of affording her a proper burial.

Westerman agreed to Feldman to accept this 'deal' and disclosed to Feldman the location of little Danielle's body.

So Defence Attorney Feldman KNEW beyond any doubt that Westerfield was guilty.

By their own efforts, however, the police found Danielle's corpse BEFORE the plea bargain deal was officially sealed and the deal was 'off'.

At trial, the disgusting Feldman conducted an aggressive defence and attacked Danielle's poor grief-struck parents and forever shamed them and besmirched their reputations by bringing to light, the totally irrelevant fact that they sometimes held 'sex parties' and suggested that one of their guests could have abducted and murdered their daughter.

YET this bastard KNEW that Westerfield was guilty.

At least Feldman's dishonest, deceitful, and unethical tactics FAILED and Westerfield was found guilty and is currently on Death Row awaiting his rightful execution.

UNLIKE Clinton's client who, thanks to her dishonest, deceitful, and unethical tactics SUCCEEDED in 'winning' her guilty client a mere two months imprisonment.

And UNLIKE Clinton, there are NO tapes around of Feldman BOASTING and LAUGHING at his own 'cleverness' in attacking people he knew were innocent because he KNEW his client was GUILTY.

I do not blindly and slavishly support any pop star, actor, politician, or political party so fanatically, that I lose all rationality and objectivity when it comes to RECOGNISING and ADMITTING any flaws and imperfections in them, so I will STAND behind my opinion, whether you dismiss it so readily or not.

^ That's why I could never be a Lawyer. You need to be a certain type of person to be able to defend people who you think are guilty of the most horrible crimes and certainly the type of person who doesn't take their work home or are capable of detaching yourself from it.